A second idea....
Maybe this is acctually a good reason to accelerate a few chrononauts to relativistic speeds and drop them out every thousand years? It would take ten volunteers, and they would have a very simple job, that of popping out of the capsule, saying "Oh, excuse me, we took a big shit in Nevada," and then going on to live as time travel celebrities.
Well, the way I figure it, hopefully we'll inspire our progeny to wave geiger counters and other quantum particle detectors around the site before they start digging. It's not like the stuff will be so close to the surface that you cant dig for a few few feet first. In fact they are putting underground rooms to stop further digging if it should start.
I am surprised by the omission of latin as a language on the markers. It's a nice, static language, and I bet religious scholars will retain knowledge of it for a long time.
Also, lets consider the kind of ground penetrating, satellite based, detection information they are prolly gonna have. Just a quick glance at a false color topographic map and they will see what it is. "Gee, that's a lot of neutron emissions for a mountain, and all in one spot."
All we need to do is to get future generations to LOOK at the damn thing. The one good thing about a big pile of nuclear waste is that it tends to be a pretty damn good beacon. Sure, maybe a few individuals will die while re-discoveing what it is, but more or less we will avoid the creation of a reservoir there, or a city, or a housing development.
WTF is IPR IMAIRNG? I read the defintion. In fact, the definition looks like blatant sour grapes. They never say what IPR means. Whatever it is ythe GPL/LGPL impairs it.
Also, does this mean that ANY demo or free educational versions are excluded from distribution?
"And then, if I tie the ends of the string together, and buch it up so all the points on the string touch all the other points on the string..."-Sam Beckett, Captain, NX-01, USS Enterprise
Doesn't seem to hold water...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Someone above posted thois article as additional material, check it out http://www.lightwatcher.com/home/articles_lightbyt e/time_light.html
That should address those of you who think that if a time machine will exist then we should already have met the people from it.
Ok, now that's done. After reading both articles I have to ask one MAJOR question. Why does this guy think that light changes gravity? I have NEVER heard any refrence to an inverse effect between gravity and light.
I know that gravity bends light and time. I know this. I have never seen anyone prove that light has an influence over gravitation. Or time for that matter. Maybe I am uninformed (possibly) but this just does not sound like it holds water.
Here is a list of criticisms, based on the articles....
1)How does he bend light into circles? I've never seen the model for it, but I assume that light can enter the right gravitational field at the right tangent and get stuck in a circular motion. Given that possibility, it then becomes a question of orbital mechanics (?!?!?!!!). SO maybe he CAN slow light (in deference to recent experimental evidence) thereby making it easier to keep it in a circle in some sort of crystal or something.
2)GIVEN that the above is possible (and I'm getting a facial tic thinking about it) then well...WHY should a ring of light have a strange gravitational effect inside of it. Quote from the second article "The strength of gravity caused by the light circle causes a twisting of space." PROVE THIS PLEASE! Show me math and experiments! Please!
3)FINALLY if the above are true then WHY should I believe that the duplicate particle is from the future? How far in the future? What offset does this device provide? How do you compute the distance in the future it is from?
Except for the fact that hickman discusses "constant velocity". I think he means constant acceleration. To attain a constant velocity you mostly just have to burn some propellant and coast.
Unless, and can anyone confirm this, he's thinking of "drag" created by gravity, magnetic clouds, etc, etc....
I have always been opposed to fission as a propulsive force because it was explained to me as a series of bombs going off behind the ship. This always seemed dangerous and dirty to me. This design though seems realistic, simple opening the turbine loop of a standard nuclear reactor. Seems like it could be as safe as the average nuclear sub, combined with the average space shot. Better launch 'em in the desert. Vandenburg seems like a real good idea again.
My question is this....
Since we're talking about constant powered flight can we also talk about constant powered flight at 9.8 m/s^2? This seems to me like the best solution for problems of bone and muscle deterioration. Just build the ship as a big platform, or stack of platforms at right angles to the direction of thrust. I know someone's gonna suggest a big spinning wheel, but there is a problem if the bearing seizes, the whole ship will spin.
I've found that when naming servers you can do what you're discussing, and name them by function and location, and that is the most useful naming onvention, as it tells you SOMETHING about the server right off the bat.
On the other hand, with thousands of servers at your disposal (on an IP network I'd guess) these names will become, as you've said, repetitive. I'll usually cheese out and use Star Trek ships names (Federation ships, not all those damn alien species. Imagine naming a server Vor'cha). After those I'll use anime characters, scifi characters, etc. Someday I'll build a server named Rincewind, Ridcully, etc.
The real point behind all of this is that with all these servers you're going to need a database somewhere to record things like maintenance history, purpose, access lists, contact info, client info, etc. If employees have easy access to this database then it does not really matter how you name them so long as the database is easily searchable.
Or, you might want to go with a more detailed naming system. Name them by subdomain, IE web01.johnsdeli and web01.joesdelivery
Everyone seems to be looking at this as if it is a major corporate war. I'd like to point out that AOL has had Netscape for a while now, has owned ICQ for a while now, and is owned by Time Warner, who supplies cable modems to their customers. They were talking about buying Red Hat a while ago.
Well...it sounds to me like there must be some locked doors that say "Confidential" on them somewhere in the AOL/Time Warner hierarchy.
Answer a few questions here, and intentions become clear.
1)Is AOL switching over their desktops to Linux? Or is it only their servers? Or...was there any mention of switching to linux at all? I propose that if they switch to Linux internally, and in specific ways it is to develop a "pilot project" for AOL on Linux.
2)Combine these three elements in a mixing bowl and hand it to a bunch of developers. a)high bandwidth b)AOL-idiot friendly philosophy c)The ability to distro Linux on a single cd. This, folks, would imply the ability to create a pseudo-network computer out of almost any old 80x86 machine out there. (NEW AOLinux! Install it on your old PC! Just install, run and be online!) If the developers at AOL can automate the Linux install they might try to make it transparent. ie: Install Linux and AOL in one fell swoop. Automate the patching process utilizing high bandwidth. They would not even need to specifically ally with hardware vendors, just say that new components should be Linux compatible.
3) As for the switch to Mozilla...IF IF IF it does happen then yes, it is a shot fired at MS. AOL knows that they need to slowly make MS look more and more buggy and inconvenient, and this is one way to do it. Already it will be hard for people to obtain cheap/free copies of MS with XP's new licensing. Many people brought MS home from the office (making it FREE, not pirated *wink wink*). By taking AOL's enormous user base away from IE compliant browsers they will force a shift in browsing habits and web design methods.
Will AOL/Time Warner start a full fledged war against MS? No. The consumers wont stand for it. It'll be too confusing for them. There's not enough alignment among the Linux players and not enough consumer products (read: Games, home office, video editing) for a full scale war for consumer hearts. Time-Warner is doing something else though, the are setting up MS for a fall. They are moving quietly, slowly. Like ninja. They are obtaining the properties, developing the technology, and shifting the terrain while microsoft is fighting anti-trust. If TW/AOL is interested they will need to release and idiot-proof, AOL ready Linux that is Linux-in-the-wild compliant.
That product, distro'd cheaply, and as a replacement for XP could mean something.
Heh, of course, then imagine AOL hackers at work. hey folks? If AOL does support linux in the above mentioned manner, please, dont hack 'em. Linux on the desktop could use the support they could give.
In response to all the economic geniuses who believe that running a government is simply a matter of making a profit...
1) I rate research that results in new industry VERY HIGHLY on the economic scale. So what if it is expensive in the short run? So what if doing things for the first time is expensive and ineficient. NASA is not a business! They are a research group. Like DARPA. Yet, no one dares say that we should close DARPA although it spoends money out the wazoo. IMHO we need to spend more money on research, less on corporate welfare for the Airlines, Car Companies, and Enron's
2) Privatize NASA? We need more public funding of Basic Research, not less. Just because I cannot tell you now all the benefits of a specific piece of research does not mean that research should stop. Thinking like that killed the Super Conducting Super Collider. Thinking like that has killed Stem Cell Research. But it has only killed that research in the US, maybe in North America. Continue to pull funding from research and researchers will go to Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Kill NASA? Then the Russians, ESA, and the Japanese will have national space programs and not us. Like that idea? Privitize research? Why? So Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas are forced to waste time and resources replicating the same discoveries?
Government has a few basic responsibilites. It ensures the security of it's citizens. It collects funds to maintain itself. It is responsible for the economy the citizens select. A major part of that economy is research. Check your history. Research leads to strong economies and happier peolpe. Otherwise you end up like Spain or France.
Saying that there is nothing to a story beyond the author's intent iis ridiculous for two important reasons.
1) An author, as he creates, is doing something that can be seen as a sort of rorscach test. The relationships between characters and events of the stories are coming from the author's mind and therefore can and usually represent more than the author expected. Unless the author has carefully constructed his story to a certain end, in which case even that can be read into (plz excuse the pun).
2) The story does not exist without the reader. I know this may be a little too Zen, but hold on. The rest of this theory states that the reader contributes as much to the story as the author and the story exists in a continuum of author-audience perception. If people see this story as being about class conciousness and war then that is because the story and interpretations are a product of those times.
Never believe an author when they say "It's just a book." They're just trying to get you to go away.
Funny thing, now that the popularity of napster has waned CD sales have gone down.
Dont get me wrong, I know there's still plenty of music sharing going on out there, but I remember when DJ's at radio stations were developing massive libraries of music off of napster.
Now that napster is by the wayside and music sales are dropping the industry still blames piracy for waning sales although, when music sharing was up and popular sales were high, now that sharing is dying sales are going down.
It is odd how a scapegoat remains a scapegoat long after he's been served up with mint jelly on the side.
I'm far from sure about this, but is it possiblr that with ACPI enabled, and considering MS's restrictive licensing for XP....
Well is it possible that they can remotely power off your PC and keep it off? Then you would not be able to acess your HD and evidence of piracy would be preserved...right? All that remote access stuff is considerably easier with ACPI running...wake on lan and such.
Maybe they are just trying to ensure a minimum level of functionality and simply have not supported anythign below certain specs.
Your computer teacher tells you this in grade school when they say a light bulb is a binary memory unit. Therefore, the transmit LED on your modem is a binary indicator. therefore if you record what comes off of iot you can reconstruct a data stream.
I'm gonna post the next piece of AMAZING RESEARCH right here. If I remove the LED and wire the leads into the microphone port of a tape recorder and press record then I will have a recorded data stream, ready to decipher at my convenience.
Sometimes it's just sad. The amazing thing about this research is that anyone thought this wasnt known.
Stupid Lawyer Tricks and Code Jackers
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
I surely agree that obfuscated code cant count as source code.
Here's the catches as I see em.
1) Will anyone ever bring this to court? Our Anonymous poster would have to blow the whistle first, otherwise we might never know WHOSE code is being stolen, and therefore no one would ever be able to sue. If this were being done by a 15 year old kid it would be called piracy, hacking, code jacking and worse.
2)Once in court can the company show that it modifies this obfuscated version of the code and not the other one? Remember, this would be decided by a jury (we try civil cases by jury in the states, I think this is US law we're discussing). To my way of thinking this is still like taking _Neuromancer_ , changing the names, and calling it your own. A US jury was capable of being conused by the math in the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson case, they might be confused by the isues involved here too, simply because of terms like compiler, source code, object code, machine code, GPL, GNU, computer, and copyright.
*Sigh*
It does seem that obfuscation violates the GPL. But for it to stick someone has to bring a suit, prove that obfuscation is being practiced, and convince a Judge/and or Jury of that.
Anonymous, I hope you can contact the author of the original code so they have a chance.
The article that is linked to does NOT claim that this is a viable source of energy.
It does claim that fusion is a possible explanation for sonoluminescence and that the results are still under review.
I would like to say this at this juncture. The discipline of science requires the vigorous investigation of phenomena, explanation of phenomena, and the vigorous critical review of explanations of phenomena.
All of this requires public review as often as possible. Vast misinterpretation of reports and massive derision do not help the cause of science.
The researchers claim simply that sonoluminescence may be explained by fusion achieved when a)the proper isotopes are present and b)small bubbles collapse to generate high energy for a moment. This ocurs after seeding with neutrons.
Sounds plausible to me. They do explain how this is happening, and performed a control test. Next comes replication of results. And please folks, dont rely on the first two attempts. Do you think the first replications of experiments by the Wright Brothers, Fermi, Marconi, or Tesla worked? Science is rife with failure to the extent that after something graduates to technology it is still not reproducible. Anyone ever buy a solid state laser that did not work? Does that mean that laser theory is wrong?
Besides, one reason we all measure gravity in high school physics is because we are rigorosly testing Newton. Every time. Every calculation. To make sure.
This is not religion, it does not happen overnight. The Science Pope cannot decree "fusion in a bottle". It might just mean that here there be fusion at an overall loss.
I for one hope it is true, it could be a way to regain energy as pressure increases outside an airframe during reentry, utilizing the increasing air pressure to drive the fusion process.
Dont be so quick to deride this, dont be too quick to embrace it. Remain skeptical as to it's possibility and it's uses. Just cause it seems so, dont mean it is. And just cause it's not know dont mean it wont.
It seems to me that the examples given could be addressed by creating appropriate libraries or classes.
With AOP you dont write the network optimization into every module, the computer does it for you. You just create a line of code that says "apply the network traffic optimization to all of the objects." While it is transparent to the programmer the develoment tool does in fact add the code then compiles it.
This is just one example. Can anyone confirm/deny this? If this is right I can see how it would save time and reduce confusion, making it very useful but it sounds like a lot of excitement over a small improvement to OOP. More like OOP++ than a new methodology.
Let me restate so folks can adress my comments properly
1)AOP seems not to change the final product before compilation. It does add a step before compile time, which is called weaving. Weaving seems to add required code to ensure that all aspects of each object are addressed properly.
2)AOP simplifies design and coding by placing the calls to the appropriate procedures or methods in the called procedure or method
***EXAMPLE*** (please excuse my pseudocode, my pascal is showing) FUNCTION validate_input {
ADD_THIS_FUNCTION_TO (object1,object2,object3); //code for validating input goes here }
FUNCTION object1 {//gets numbers}
FUNCTION object2 {//gets strings}
FUNCTION object3 {//gets passwords}
My understanding is that before going to the compiler AOP would process the code and weave in the FUNCTION validate_input simply by adding the code in the right places in oblect1, object2, and object3. a)Am I right? b)if not (if, for instance, aspectJ does something different which is more customized to AOP) would this have a similar effect?
While this example is truncated and perhaps illegible I would appreciate any feedback as to whether or not it is on the right track.
Too bad folks. This is what comes from allowing the computing enviornment to become fragmented and non-standardized. Microsoft is not a standard-bearer (other than their flag), and has on many occasions BROKEN the standards that existed (vbscript instead of javascript for instance).
The simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc, have set the sandard for competitive , evolutionary, cut throat tactics in the computing industry. These large corporations have repeatedly introduced non conforming, incompatible products to "gain market share". They employ marketing tactics to obfuscate the facts about their products and attempt to squash independent discovery and exposure of flaws and incompatibilities.
Well, where was the debate when I could not open my word 97 documents in WordPro or WordPerfect? Others here have mentioned the cross-browser problems. And there are still cross platform incompatibilites which have only STARTED to be addressed now that the internet is here.
Is it wrong to specifically deny access to an email to certain mail readers? Before I can answer that consider this. Is it wrong for Outlook to have features only other Outlook users can use? Your answer to both questions should be the same because the operation is the same! In either case there is data that is unreadable by an unsuitable client.
Our clever friend is not the first computing entity to make a non-compatible standard, and he will not be the last. Those of you who use outlook are as much to blame for this by supporting this behavior by the behemoths in the past. You have been warned in the past that MS products were not great, only adequate or less. You persevered in purchasing them anyway. In essence YOU SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED THAT YOUR MS PRODUCTS DO NOT WORK TO SPEC. You've always liked it that way in the past, here you go. YOu should have been ready.
This is no big deal. In fact, this idea is unfeasible as it would interfere with flight paths. Why not just set up arrays of solar panels and use that electricity to make h2 from water?
Hmmm....50 or 60 years outgoing, maybe 10 years to decode it...then a reply coming back at us 50 or 60 years later. Using a conservative estimate, IF someone is listening... Well it seems to me that we might have to wait 150 to 200 yrs for a response if one is forthcoming.
I wonder if anyone willremember that this msg was sent.
My question is, what poor sap on earth is going to receive the messsage and have to crack the coded response?
Slashdot Mirror
A second idea.... Maybe this is acctually a good reason to accelerate a few chrononauts to relativistic speeds and drop them out every thousand years? It would take ten volunteers, and they would have a very simple job, that of popping out of the capsule, saying "Oh, excuse me, we took a big shit in Nevada," and then going on to live as time travel celebrities.
Well, the way I figure it, hopefully we'll inspire our progeny to wave geiger counters and other quantum particle detectors around the site before they start digging. It's not like the stuff will be so close to the surface that you cant dig for a few few feet first. In fact they are putting underground rooms to stop further digging if it should start.
I am surprised by the omission of latin as a language on the markers. It's a nice, static language, and I bet religious scholars will retain knowledge of it for a long time.
Also, lets consider the kind of ground penetrating, satellite based, detection information they are prolly gonna have. Just a quick glance at a false color topographic map and they will see what it is. "Gee, that's a lot of neutron emissions for a mountain, and all in one spot."
All we need to do is to get future generations to LOOK at the damn thing. The one good thing about a big pile of nuclear waste is that it tends to be a pretty damn good beacon. Sure, maybe a few individuals will die while re-discoveing what it is, but more or less we will avoid the creation of a reservoir there, or a city, or a housing development.
Ok, this is a weird contract.
IANAL. There, with that said...
WTF is IPR IMAIRNG? I read the defintion. In fact, the definition looks like blatant sour grapes. They never say what IPR means. Whatever it is ythe GPL/LGPL impairs it.
Also, does this mean that ANY demo or free educational versions are excluded from distribution?
"And then, if I tie the ends of the string together, and buch it up so all the points on the string touch all the other points on the string..."-Sam Beckett, Captain, NX-01, USS Enterprise
"Eddies in the currents." "Is he...Is he..."
Someone above posted thois article as additional material, check it out http://www.lightwatcher.com/home/articles_lightbyt e/time_light.html
That should address those of you who think that if a time machine will exist then we should already have met the people from it.
Ok, now that's done. After reading both articles I have to ask one MAJOR question. Why does this guy think that light changes gravity? I have NEVER heard any refrence to an inverse effect between gravity and light.
I know that gravity bends light and time. I know this. I have never seen anyone prove that light has an influence over gravitation. Or time for that matter. Maybe I am uninformed (possibly) but this just does not sound like it holds water.
Here is a list of criticisms, based on the articles....
1)How does he bend light into circles? I've never seen the model for it, but I assume that light can enter the right gravitational field at the right tangent and get stuck in a circular motion. Given that possibility, it then becomes a question of orbital mechanics (?!?!?!!!). SO maybe he CAN slow light (in deference to recent experimental evidence) thereby making it easier to keep it in a circle in some sort of crystal or something.
2)GIVEN that the above is possible (and I'm getting a facial tic thinking about it) then well...WHY should a ring of light have a strange gravitational effect inside of it. Quote from the second article "The strength of gravity caused by the light circle causes a twisting of space." PROVE THIS PLEASE! Show me math and experiments! Please!
3)FINALLY if the above are true then WHY should I believe that the duplicate particle is from the future? How far in the future? What offset does this device provide? How do you compute the distance in the future it is from?
Any comments folks?
Interesting....
Except for the fact that hickman discusses "constant velocity". I think he means constant acceleration. To attain a constant velocity you mostly just have to burn some propellant and coast.
Unless, and can anyone confirm this, he's thinking of "drag" created by gravity, magnetic clouds, etc, etc....
I have always been opposed to fission as a propulsive force because it was explained to me as a series of bombs going off behind the ship. This always seemed dangerous and dirty to me. This design though seems realistic, simple opening the turbine loop of a standard nuclear reactor. Seems like it could be as safe as the average nuclear sub, combined with the average space shot. Better launch 'em in the desert. Vandenburg seems like a real good idea again.
My question is this....
Since we're talking about constant powered flight can we also talk about constant powered flight at 9.8 m/s^2? This seems to me like the best solution for problems of bone and muscle deterioration. Just build the ship as a big platform, or stack of platforms at right angles to the direction of thrust. I know someone's gonna suggest a big spinning wheel, but there is a problem if the bearing seizes, the whole ship will spin.
Eh, more food for thought.
I've found that when naming servers you can do what you're discussing, and name them by function and location, and that is the most useful naming onvention, as it tells you SOMETHING about the server right off the bat. On the other hand, with thousands of servers at your disposal (on an IP network I'd guess) these names will become, as you've said, repetitive. I'll usually cheese out and use Star Trek ships names (Federation ships, not all those damn alien species. Imagine naming a server Vor'cha). After those I'll use anime characters, scifi characters, etc. Someday I'll build a server named Rincewind, Ridcully, etc. The real point behind all of this is that with all these servers you're going to need a database somewhere to record things like maintenance history, purpose, access lists, contact info, client info, etc. If employees have easy access to this database then it does not really matter how you name them so long as the database is easily searchable. Or, you might want to go with a more detailed naming system. Name them by subdomain, IE web01.johnsdeli and web01.joesdelivery
more fun is when segments crash..."Britney an J-Lo are going down on us again."
Phrasing is everything.
So much to discuss!
Everyone seems to be looking at this as if it is a major corporate war. I'd like to point out that AOL has had Netscape for a while now, has owned ICQ for a while now, and is owned by Time Warner, who supplies cable modems to their customers. They were talking about buying Red Hat a while ago.
Well...it sounds to me like there must be some locked doors that say "Confidential" on them somewhere in the AOL/Time Warner hierarchy.
Answer a few questions here, and intentions become clear.
1)Is AOL switching over their desktops to Linux? Or is it only their servers? Or...was there any mention of switching to linux at all? I propose that if they switch to Linux internally, and in specific ways it is to develop a "pilot project" for AOL on Linux.
2)Combine these three elements in a mixing bowl and hand it to a bunch of developers. a)high bandwidth b)AOL-idiot friendly philosophy c)The ability to distro Linux on a single cd. This, folks, would imply the ability to create a pseudo-network computer out of almost any old 80x86 machine out there. (NEW AOLinux! Install it on your old PC! Just install, run and be online!) If the developers at AOL can automate the Linux install they might try to make it transparent. ie: Install Linux and AOL in one fell swoop. Automate the patching process utilizing high bandwidth. They would not even need to specifically ally with hardware vendors, just say that new components should be Linux compatible.
3) As for the switch to Mozilla...IF IF IF it does happen then yes, it is a shot fired at MS. AOL knows that they need to slowly make MS look more and more buggy and inconvenient, and this is one way to do it. Already it will be hard for people to obtain cheap/free copies of MS with XP's new licensing. Many people brought MS home from the office (making it FREE, not pirated *wink wink*). By taking AOL's enormous user base away from IE compliant browsers they will force a shift in browsing habits and web design methods.
Will AOL/Time Warner start a full fledged war against MS? No. The consumers wont stand for it. It'll be too confusing for them. There's not enough alignment among the Linux players and not enough consumer products (read: Games, home office, video editing) for a full scale war for consumer hearts. Time-Warner is doing something else though, the are setting up MS for a fall. They are moving quietly, slowly. Like ninja. They are obtaining the properties, developing the technology, and shifting the terrain while microsoft is fighting anti-trust. If TW/AOL is interested they will need to release and idiot-proof, AOL ready Linux that is Linux-in-the-wild compliant.
That product, distro'd cheaply, and as a replacement for XP could mean something.
Heh, of course, then imagine AOL hackers at work. hey folks? If AOL does support linux in the above mentioned manner, please, dont hack 'em. Linux on the desktop could use the support they could give.
In response to all the economic geniuses who believe that running a government is simply a matter of making a profit...
1) I rate research that results in new industry VERY HIGHLY on the economic scale. So what if it is expensive in the short run? So what if doing things for the first time is expensive and ineficient. NASA is not a business! They are a research group. Like DARPA. Yet, no one dares say that we should close DARPA although it spoends money out the wazoo. IMHO we need to spend more money on research, less on corporate welfare for the Airlines, Car Companies, and Enron's
2) Privatize NASA? We need more public funding of Basic Research, not less. Just because I cannot tell you now all the benefits of a specific piece of research does not mean that research should stop. Thinking like that killed the Super Conducting Super Collider. Thinking like that has killed Stem Cell Research. But it has only killed that research in the US, maybe in North America. Continue to pull funding from research and researchers will go to Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Kill NASA? Then the Russians, ESA, and the Japanese will have national space programs and not us. Like that idea? Privitize research? Why? So Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas are forced to waste time and resources replicating the same discoveries?
Government has a few basic responsibilites. It ensures the security of it's citizens. It collects funds to maintain itself. It is responsible for the economy the citizens select. A major part of that economy is research. Check your history. Research leads to strong economies and happier peolpe. Otherwise you end up like Spain or France.
Saying that there is nothing to a story beyond the author's intent iis ridiculous for two important reasons.
1) An author, as he creates, is doing something that can be seen as a sort of rorscach test. The relationships between characters and events of the stories are coming from the author's mind and therefore can and usually represent more than the author expected. Unless the author has carefully constructed his story to a certain end, in which case even that can be read into (plz excuse the pun).
2) The story does not exist without the reader. I know this may be a little too Zen, but hold on. The rest of this theory states that the reader contributes as much to the story as the author and the story exists in a continuum of author-audience perception. If people see this story as being about class conciousness and war then that is because the story and interpretations are a product of those times.
Never believe an author when they say "It's just a book." They're just trying to get you to go away.
Since this code is obfuscated I guess the GPL does not apply to it?
Germans. It figures.
Funny thing, now that the popularity of napster has waned CD sales have gone down. Dont get me wrong, I know there's still plenty of music sharing going on out there, but I remember when DJ's at radio stations were developing massive libraries of music off of napster. Now that napster is by the wayside and music sales are dropping the industry still blames piracy for waning sales although, when music sharing was up and popular sales were high, now that sharing is dying sales are going down. It is odd how a scapegoat remains a scapegoat long after he's been served up with mint jelly on the side.
I'm far from sure about this, but is it possiblr that with ACPI enabled, and considering MS's restrictive licensing for XP....
Well is it possible that they can remotely power off your PC and keep it off? Then you would not be able to acess your HD and evidence of piracy would be preserved...right? All that remote access stuff is considerably easier with ACPI running...wake on lan and such.
Maybe they are just trying to ensure a minimum level of functionality and simply have not supported anythign below certain specs.
Maybe I'm just paranoid...
Maybe.
Ummmm....
OK, I knew this years ago.
Your computer teacher tells you this in grade school when they say a light bulb is a binary memory unit. Therefore, the transmit LED on your modem is a binary indicator. therefore if you record what comes off of iot you can reconstruct a data stream.
I'm gonna post the next piece of AMAZING RESEARCH right here. If I remove the LED and wire the leads into the microphone port of a tape recorder and press record then I will have a recorded data stream, ready to decipher at my convenience.
Sometimes it's just sad. The amazing thing about this research is that anyone thought this wasnt known.
I surely agree that obfuscated code cant count as source code.
Here's the catches as I see em.
1) Will anyone ever bring this to court? Our Anonymous poster would have to blow the whistle first, otherwise we might never know WHOSE code is being stolen, and therefore no one would ever be able to sue. If this were being done by a 15 year old kid it would be called piracy, hacking, code jacking and worse.
2)Once in court can the company show that it modifies this obfuscated version of the code and not the other one? Remember, this would be decided by a jury (we try civil cases by jury in the states, I think this is US law we're discussing). To my way of thinking this is still like taking _Neuromancer_ , changing the names, and calling it your own. A US jury was capable of being conused by the math in the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson case, they might be confused by the isues involved here too, simply because of terms like compiler, source code, object code, machine code, GPL, GNU, computer, and copyright.
*Sigh*
It does seem that obfuscation violates the GPL. But for it to stick someone has to bring a suit, prove that obfuscation is being practiced, and convince a Judge/and or Jury of that.
Anonymous, I hope you can contact the author of the original code so they have a chance.
The article that is linked to does NOT claim that this is a viable source of energy.
It does claim that fusion is a possible explanation for sonoluminescence and that the results are still under review.
I would like to say this at this juncture. The discipline of science requires the vigorous investigation of phenomena, explanation of phenomena, and the vigorous critical review of explanations of phenomena.
All of this requires public review as often as possible. Vast misinterpretation of reports and massive derision do not help the cause of science.
The researchers claim simply that sonoluminescence may be explained by fusion achieved when a)the proper isotopes are present and b)small bubbles collapse to generate high energy for a moment. This ocurs after seeding with neutrons.
Sounds plausible to me. They do explain how this is happening, and performed a control test. Next comes replication of results. And please folks, dont rely on the first two attempts. Do you think the first replications of experiments by the Wright Brothers, Fermi, Marconi, or Tesla worked? Science is rife with failure to the extent that after something graduates to technology it is still not reproducible. Anyone ever buy a solid state laser that did not work? Does that mean that laser theory is wrong?
Besides, one reason we all measure gravity in high school physics is because we are rigorosly testing Newton. Every time. Every calculation. To make sure.
This is not religion, it does not happen overnight. The Science Pope cannot decree "fusion in a bottle". It might just mean that here there be fusion at an overall loss.
I for one hope it is true, it could be a way to regain energy as pressure increases outside an airframe during reentry, utilizing the increasing air pressure to drive the fusion process.
Dont be so quick to deride this, dont be too quick to embrace it. Remain skeptical as to it's possibility and it's uses. Just cause it seems so, dont mean it is. And just cause it's not know dont mean it wont.
It seems to me that the examples given could be addressed by creating appropriate libraries or classes.
//code for validating input goes here
With AOP you dont write the network optimization into every module, the computer does it for you. You just create a line of code that says "apply the network traffic optimization to all of the objects." While it is transparent to the programmer the develoment tool does in fact add the code then compiles it.
This is just one example. Can anyone confirm/deny this? If this is right I can see how it would save time and reduce confusion, making it very useful but it sounds like a lot of excitement over a small improvement to OOP. More like OOP++ than a new methodology.
Let me restate so folks can adress my comments properly
1)AOP seems not to change the final product before compilation. It does add a step before compile time, which is called weaving. Weaving seems to add required code to ensure that all aspects of each object are addressed properly.
2)AOP simplifies design and coding by placing the calls to the appropriate procedures or methods in the called procedure or method
***EXAMPLE*** (please excuse my pseudocode, my pascal is showing)
FUNCTION validate_input
{
ADD_THIS_FUNCTION_TO (object1,object2,object3);
}
FUNCTION object1
{//gets numbers}
FUNCTION object2
{//gets strings}
FUNCTION object3
{//gets passwords}
My understanding is that before going to the compiler AOP would process the code and weave in the FUNCTION validate_input simply by adding the code in the right places in oblect1, object2, and object3. a)Am I right? b)if not (if, for instance, aspectJ does something different which is more customized to AOP) would this have a similar effect?
While this example is truncated and perhaps illegible I would appreciate any feedback as to whether or not it is on the right track.
More food for the mill.
Too bad folks. This is what comes from allowing the computing enviornment to become fragmented and non-standardized. Microsoft is not a standard-bearer (other than their flag), and has on many occasions BROKEN the standards that existed (vbscript instead of javascript for instance).
The simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc, have set the sandard for competitive , evolutionary, cut throat tactics in the computing industry. These large corporations have repeatedly introduced non conforming, incompatible products to "gain market share". They employ marketing tactics to obfuscate the facts about their products and attempt to squash independent discovery and exposure of flaws and incompatibilities.
Well, where was the debate when I could not open my word 97 documents in WordPro or WordPerfect? Others here have mentioned the cross-browser problems. And there are still cross platform incompatibilites which have only STARTED to be addressed now that the internet is here.
Is it wrong to specifically deny access to an email to certain mail readers? Before I can answer that consider this. Is it wrong for Outlook to have features only other Outlook users can use? Your answer to both questions should be the same because the operation is the same! In either case there is data that is unreadable by an unsuitable client.
Our clever friend is not the first computing entity to make a non-compatible standard, and he will not be the last. Those of you who use outlook are as much to blame for this by supporting this behavior by the behemoths in the past. You have been warned in the past that MS products were not great, only adequate or less. You persevered in purchasing them anyway. In essence YOU SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED THAT YOUR MS PRODUCTS DO NOT WORK TO SPEC. You've always liked it that way in the past, here you go. YOu should have been ready.
Stop crying in my beer.
This is no big deal. In fact, this idea is unfeasible as it would interfere with flight paths. Why not just set up arrays of solar panels and use that electricity to make h2 from water?
Hmmm....50 or 60 years outgoing, maybe 10 years to decode it...then a reply coming back at us 50 or 60 years later. Using a conservative estimate, IF someone is listening... Well it seems to me that we might have to wait 150 to 200 yrs for a response if one is forthcoming. I wonder if anyone willremember that this msg was sent. My question is, what poor sap on earth is going to receive the messsage and have to crack the coded response?
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Isaac Asimov Arthur C. Clark Ray Bradbury Frank Herbert